D&D General No One Reads Conan Now -- So What Are They Reading?

But he's a much weaker example then Conan himself, as is Jack Reacher.
Feels like the most recent series of Reacher has some pretty bizarre morality that's not quite might-makes-right but is certainly something. Reacher in S1 seemed to be a strange, almost autistic character who was trying to do what was right and unafraid of confronting very bad and dangerous people do so, but also doesn't seem to needlessly murder people. As of S3, he's just a truly remorseless murderer without the slightest moral qualm or shred of human fellowship. The show keeps giving him cover when people phone him up and say "Yeah that guy you already murdered? Turns out he was a bad dude!", but it's like, first off, Reacher didn't murder this person because they were bad or even a direct physical threat to him, he did it because it was expedient, and second off, he didn't know that when he did it, so it's pure luck! He's not even an anti-hero in a normal sense, and that both the show and at least one other character seem to regard him as heroic is perplexing.

(Funny because the actor is extremely nice and cool IRL! I somehow doubt he approves of Reacher's relentless slaughter.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Feels like the most recent series of Reacher has some pretty bizarre morality that's not quite might-makes-right but is certainly something. Reacher in S1 seemed to be a strange, almost autistic character who was trying to do what was right and unafraid of confronting very bad and dangerous people do so, but also doesn't seem to needlessly murder people. As of S3, he's just a truly remorseless murderer without the slightest moral qualm or shred of human fellowship. The show keeps giving him cover when people phone him up and say "Yeah that guy you already murdered? Turns out he was a bad dude!", but it's like, first off, Reacher didn't murder this person because they were bad or even a direct physical threat to him, he did it because it was expedient, and second off, he didn't know that when he did it, so it's pure luck! He's not even an anti-hero in a normal sense, and that both the show and at least one other character seem to regard him as heroic is perplexing.

(Funny because the actor is extremely nice and cool IRL! I somehow doubt he approves of Reacher's relentless slaughter.)

I haven't seen Reacher but he is starting to sound a bit like the Toxic Avenger lol (that granny you killed? she was the head of a giant human trafficking ring!)
 


There are still barbaric lands but for those who play DnD--especially new ones--new fiction doesn't really explore it except in a more direct environmentalist way.

It's nature vs civilization now, barbarity as something that goes against civilization rarely happens nowadays--most people just think of those as littler civilization.
 


There are still barbaric lands but for those who play DnD--especially new ones--new fiction doesn't really explore it except in a more direct environmentalist way.

It's nature vs civilization now, barbarity as something that goes against civilization rarely happens nowadays--most people just think of those as littler civilization.
Mostly they are just littler areas of civilization.

Maybe that's part of why Howard writes of Conan's origins in the abstract, and never(?) describes Cimmeria in detail.

One thing that also occurs to me is that perhaps another reason is that Tarzan preceded Howard's writing, and was immensely popular, so he may have been assuming that the reader already had a conception about the barbaric wild and an example of how man in the state of nature could be (in this fictional conception, at least) a dominant animal within it. Burroughs had already described that at length, so Howard could assume that most of his readers had that image to picture someone like Conan in and the people he came from living and thriving (albeit with struggle) in.
 

Maybe that's part of why Howard writes of Conan's origins in the abstract, and never(?) describes Cimmeria in detail.
Yeah, my issue with the movie. He should be an outsider wherever he goes. That's the point. Also connects to Beowulf, which I assume Howard was familiar with.
Tarzan preceded Howard's writing
I think it's safe to take it as read that Tarzan was a major inspiration.
 

Oh, no. The causes of the gap are mostly known, and it isn't that guys just can't find books they like. Just like falling men's college enrollment rates aren't because men can't find schools they don't like.

Broadly, US (and to a significant extent world) culture does not put emphasis on male intellectual achievement. We reward our boys much more for their achievements in athletics than we do in academics. Fathers, if they read to their children at all, are more likely to read to their daughters than their sons. Our images of masculinity are about being physically and socially powerful, rather than about knowing and thinking.

Basically, men don't read as much, because we don't teach our boys to value reading.
I don't think you live in the same world I do. Men's reading habits have fallen dramatically from what they used to be at exactly the same time that that, to the extent that it was ever true (in my experience it wasn't) it became significantly less true. Men were always encouraged by society to excel, but the idea that intellectual achievement was inferior to athletic achievement is a false just-so story that is more false every year and that's been true for decades. The War Against Boys has made that just-so story increasingly and obviously false for several decades now.

In 2015, it was reported that women represent 78 percent of the publishing industry overall and 84 percent of the editors. Those numbers have almost certainly risen in the intervening decade, while men increasingly have stopped reading fiction, as the male fiction-reading rate declined from 35.1 percent in 2012 to 27.7 percent in 2022. Female authors also account for more than 50 percent of all books being published, in both the fiction and non-fiction markets. The numbers matter, and if your numbers say that there's a correlation that has nothing to do with your null hypothesis, your null hypothesis is, at beast, very suspect.

Feminists consider these developments to be a success, despite the fact that the overall number of books sold in the USA has not increased concomitant with the 12 percent growth in the population. But they wonder why this success has not been replicated in other industries. The answer is pretty simple. Unlike other industries, success in the publishing industry is mostly, though not quite entirely, given to an author rather than earned by her on her own merits. Every step of the publishing process, from book contract to literary award, is carefully curated by a very small group of people, mostly women, who control who is permitted to publish, what the print runs will be, what the bookstores will carry, and where the books will be displayed in on the shelves.

Men don't read because the entire publishing industry isn't interesting in selling books to men, and watching the numbers of male readers fall in realtime as these changes have happened do not support your theory. (Which, granted, I realize isn't your theory. It's a prevailing narrative that is kind of ubiquitous in the world of people who pay attention to this kind of thing. But it absolutely does not match the data.)
 


If Lovecraft had written in a conventional fashion he would have been completely forgotten over 60 years ago. He is only remembered because of his style of writing. And if that's what people remember and enjoy, it is in no way bad.
Hard disagree - he is remembered for what he invented, not for his writing style. No, I should amend that - his writing style is oft-parodied. I'm not sure what you mean by "in a conventional fashion" - great writers do not write "in a conventional fashion." That's why they are great writers. Lovecraft writes like the overheated fanboy he was, but with a singular imagination for cosmic horror.
 

Remove ads

Top